[ad_1]
Previously, a company employee who loaded and transported dogs to Finland received a similar verdict.
Helsinki The local court sentenced the owner of a transport company to a one-year suspended sentence for serious animal welfare crimes. It tells the story of a rescue dog imported from Russia that died of heatstroke in a truck in the summer of 2022.
At the time, 32 dogs were being transported from Moscow to Finland in a truck owned by a foreign company. In Finland, it was noticed that seven of the dogs died on the way. Later, three more dogs had to be euthanized due to poor prognosis for treatment.
The dogs died in the car from symptoms caused by the heat.
An employee of the company who loaded the dogs onto a truck for shipment to Finland was sentenced to one year’s probation in September 2022 for serious animal welfare crimes.
A transport company For vehicle owners, it is assessed whether the truck used to transport the dog is properly equipped and whether the vehicle’s air conditioning is working properly.
The court found that the car was generally suitable for transporting the dogs. However, according to the court, the car’s inadequate air conditioning, the large number of dogs relative to the car’s size and the poor air quality probably impaired the dogs’ health before they were driven from Tallinn to Finland.
During the boat trip, the air conditioning was turned off in the cars. Ultimately, according to the court, this caused the dogs to feel terrible and suffer from heat stroke or worse. The court said the transportation caused unnecessary pain, suffering and torture to the dogs. In addition, some dogs died of heat stroke during the journey.
Almost a third of the dogs experienced a very painful death, and the rest also suffered, according to the verdict.
correct As the owner and employer of the transport company, the man was responsible for the welfare of the dog during the journey. The man was found to have breached the duty of care required of him, which he could have complied with under the law, such as ensuring there was adequate air conditioning in the vehicle.
The court said the breach of duty was extremely serious because it endangered the lives of dozens of animals. The court considered the conduct outrageous because the purpose of the procedure was financial gain.
However, the court said there was no evidence that the man had intentionally acted as described in the indictment and therefore was guilty of major animal protection offences due to gross negligence.
[ad_2]
Source link
